Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (153257)	12/28/2001 4:46:32 PM
From: greg s	Respond to of 186894

re: After all Itanium was only 3-4 years late and the 2nd generation is only 1-2 years late so far That's because Intel understood what it took to develop and deploy an entirely new 64-bit microarchitecture. Intel had the knowledge and financial ability to launch the IA-64 effort well ahead of market demand and with enough time allowed to handle expected delays inherent is such a monumental undertaking. Compare this to AMD's anemic attempt to launch an extension architecture which is still slipping, possibly beyond the desktop market window and certainly a "does not meet" with respect to the expectations of the mainstream server market (an absolute certainty by the time hamster shows up). Albert, I don't understand how you can keep arguing these points, unless you enjoy arguing for it's own sake.

To: AK2004 who wrote (153257)	12/28/2001 4:48:48 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Albert, No, I'm just pointing out that "It should be next year" is akin to the Chicago Cubs fan saying "wait 'till next year". Easy to say, but meaningless, at the end of each season. re: "amd's road map is fairly fluid" "Fairly fluid" is very diplomatic. I suppose you agree that Intel's Itanium road map is "fairly fluid" as well? And the Northwood road map is much "less fluid"? John